Pages

Sunday, 31 March 2013

Karlton Index 2013

The results of the 2013 Karlton Index survey have been published today. Launched last year, the aim of the Karlton Index is to highlight good practice within breed clubs, to share ideas and to "offer encouragement to all breeds in the difficult challenges faced in managing health and welfare issues."

"Its aim is also to recognise the hard work that is invested in breed health and to highlight the efforts to those who commit their time and efforts into these issues," explains Philippa Robinson, who created the Index.

Philippa is a pet owner who was "politicised" on this issue through the experience of owning a German Wirehaired Pointer, Alfie, who died aged four of idiopathic epilepsy. She now owns a gorgeous wire x weim crossbreed, in good health I believe.

Philippa first contacted me in March 2007 to tell me about Alfie and we interviewed her for Pedigree Dogs Exposed - an interview that hit the cutting room floor, not because it wasn't any good (Philippa talked fluently and passionately on the issues as she saw them) but because it was hard to stand-up, in a legally-concrete way, the claim that Alfie's breeder had been negligent. As such, Philippa appears in PDE only briefly, taking a walk with Cavalier campaigner, Carol Fowler.

After the film, the relationship continued, but we drifted apart a couple of years ago after a disastrous attempt to set up a charity designed to promote and campaign on better dog health and welfare. The reasons were several-fold but probably boil down to Philippa being frustrated with my casual acquaintance with deadlines (justified...) and me put out by how sharp she can be on occasions.

Since then, we have exchanged the occasional email - most friendly-enough; others which have doubtless made one or the other of us bridle.

Meanwhile, I continue my role as the gobby blogger scrutinising breeds and health reforms with a critical eye. And Philippa has taken a different tack: she has now forged relationships with the Kennel Club and breed clubs/breeders, feeling that this is a more positive, productive approach.

The result is a very different Karlton Index to the last one, which was largely critical (and which is no longer available on the Karlton Index website). The 2013 survey is clearly designed to encourage more than damn. And that's fair enough. There are, after all, many ways to skin a cat.

But I have a problem with the Karlton Index and it concerns what it measures and how it measures it.
For notwithstanding the huge effort that Philippa has put into this - all on an unpaid, volunteer basis - the Karlton Index doesn't actually measure progress in health (as it claims) - it mostly measures the appearance of health.

Just like dog shows.

So, for example, breed clubs get marks for disseminating health information, for conducting surveys and publishing the results, for holding health seminars and for out-reaching to pet owners through a half-decent website.

All well and good and sometimes this will translate into better health, but of course not always. Some breed clubs are real bullshitters and too often proactive health campaigners within the breed are ignored and even vilified by other breeders. The Cavalier Club is a case in point - heaps of health info on the website, but behind the scenes still in denial about the extent of the health problems in the breed and even Committee members ignoring the breeding protocols designed to improve breed health.

Philippa's scoring is, she concedes, often subjective - garnered in the most part from looking at websites, talking to the KC and breed clubs and, in some instances, breeders on the ground. I imagine that some of her information comes privately from emails, too. But at best this gives a somewhat patchy picture of what's really going on..

There is one exception: one part of the survey is designed to measure "Impact", and this is spelled out precisely, as follows:

Elimination of conformational abnormalities.

Greater genetic diversity for individual dogs and breed as a whole.

Reduction in the incidence of genetic disease.

In this year's Index, Philippa 41 breeds have improved their "Impact" rating - and yet I can find no hard or objective evidence, based on the criteria above, to support these claims.

Meanwhile, here, according to Philppa, are the top 10 breeds for 2013.

Click to enlarge

And this, I think, illustrates the problem. In first place is the Dachshund - undoubtedly prompted by amazing work that's been done on health by Dachshund Breed Council Chairman Ian Seath. It ticks many of Philippa's boxes, but the issue remains that Dachshund breeders are in the main clinging to a conformational extreme that is contributing to a very high level of disc disease in the breed - up to 25 per cent. And rather than straight-up demanding more moderate dogs, the Club is (in my view) time-wasting in funding research into finding a gene or genes for Dachshund disc disease when both (and more) approaches are needed.

Now, sure, some extreme dogs appear to suffer less than less extreme ones. Yep, some varieties suffer less, too. But bottom line, what do you expect when you breed a dog that is so proportionately out of kilter?

Now there is no doubt that the Dachshund Club/Council are being truly proactive on health. And yet I fear that this gives out the message that breeding long dogs with almost no legs is OK when it isn't.

And how about the Flatcoated Retriever in second place? Again, the Flatcoated Retriever Society is reasonably proactive on health initiatives. It is now promoting a Flatcoat Death Register and last month the Club announced that it was reopening its Group Study, following a rolling cohort of Flatcoats for life - and better, still, it is open to all flatcoats worldwide. Both are useful, but as I have whinged on many occasions, the Society plays down the elephant in the room - that more than 50 per cent of flatcoats are dead from cancer by the age of 8/9. (And when I mention it I am accused of "ruining the breed".)

The Irish Setter, meanwhile, is in a dire state with epilepsy and bloat rife. And the inclusion of the Bernese Mountain dog at No 6 is a mystery.

I emailed Philippa with my concerns this morning, specifically about the subjectivity and arbitrary nature of her scoring. I asked for the data to support the improved "Impact" scores. And in relation to Berners, I asked her this:

"You praise the BMD Club for a health seminar that took place in 2011 (so not current) - a seminar about which [health rep] Steve Green himself said that only 30 UK breeders (out of 1200 club members) attended. They have come sixth and yet this is the breed with the highest rate of cancer of them all. Additionally, are you aware that they have never reported on their 2009 health survey, and in fact have removed all mention of it from their website? Steve Green himself is fab but how much impact is he having? Have I missed something?"

Philippa replied that individual breed summaries (that presumably will answer my questions) were not available but will be released in April/May.

Additionally, she wrote: "To address those questions and more I am planning follow-up workshops to be held at locations around the country (hopefully at vet schools) so that these incredibly important issues can be explored in a meaningful context i.e. not just batted about ping pong fashion on facebook and blogs."

The exchange kinda deteriorated from there, with Philippa saying she "didn't like the line" I was taking - and ending just now with her emailing: "You are very tiresome. And of course I would expect many of the quarters with whom I now engage to think that also. But what has really surprised me this past 18 months is the number of eminent people not connected with the KC or breed clubs who find both you and Beverley so.I won’t be visiting your blog to find out your thoughts."

Oh I bet she does... And I hope she does - because flinging insults because she doesn't like the scrutiny isn't grown-up, professional or productive. And also because I believe my concerns are valid (as indeed she herself appeared to acknowledge at the start of the communication today).

(The reference to Beverley, by the way, is to Beverley Cuddy, editor of Dogs' Today magazine - and while I can understand that many find me an irritant, I can see no justification for including Beverley in the above. Bev is a hands-on helper on so many dog fronts - including running the successful Don't Cook Your Dog campaign and spearheading a super charity Tailwaggers which helps people struggling to pay vet bills. Beverley doesn't even opine that much on pedigree dog health these days; it's just that some have never forgiven her for claiming in Pedigree Dogs Exposed that "the dogs are falling apart".)

The bottom line is that I feel Philippa should have waited until she could provide the missing data. After all, she has recently completed - with distinction - a Masters of Science degree in Human Resource Management and she tells me: "Part of [this] was a module called Research Philosophy and Methods - in which I achieved a mark of 78% - it is usually a very tough module for students so such a mark is rare."

And yet such a module must have stressed the importance of supporting your conclusions with hard data. After all, it is a demand made of any serious research.

I hope I'm not being too mean to Philippa - and I welcome views from others. I do see a point to the Karlton Index, and I do appreciate that she's put a huge amount of time into it, completely unfunded, as far as I'm aware.

I just want it to be better - and fear that in its current form it is in danger of rewarding illusion; also that breeds which have no cause for complacency will triumph re how well they have done.

If we want to measure improvements in health, we need to find a way to measure real indicators of better health - morbidity, longevity, fertility, litter size, functional fitness - and not just the appearance of doing something.

74 comments:

I have to admit to some disappointment with the 2013 results of the Karlton Index. The biggest disappointment is that I cant see what the index is really measuring - it doesn't appear to be based on any hard data about improvements in the health and conformation of different breeds , but on what the breed clubs SAY they do. And what breed clubs say they do is notoriously variable and/or unreliable. And I'm baffled by some of the breeds which appear in the top ten, in spite of having some serious health problems. And I can see two breeds in the top ten, the Irish Setter and the Irish Red and White Setter, whose effective population size due to inbreeding is so small that it puts both breeds at serious risk of developing further genetic problems, yet neither breed club is tackling this.It worries me that some breeds near the top of this list will be patting themselves on the back because they are being recognized as having made real progress in the health of their dogs, while in reality they are simply good at talking the talk, or to be blunt, bullshitting, while their breeds are actually in dire trouble.And too much emphasis is being placed on the role of the breed clubs : of course the breed clubs SHOULD play an important part in recognising health and genetic problems and working to improve health and conformation. The reality is that the breed clubs are often wilfully blind, run by older and more established breeders who are in denial, and the clubs themselves are the biggest obstacle to improving health . Its often a brave breeder who stands up and blows the whistle on a health problem and tries to do something about it, while the breed club tries to silence themThe Karlton Index could work, if a way could be devised of collecting real hard data , and using it to measure the level of health in each breed , and how it changes from year to year, and to compare breeds . But it has a long way to go before this becomes reality. The Index started as an original and promising new idea, I just hope it hasn't degenerated into being just another mouthpiece for some of the more conservative elements at the KC and in the breed clubs who still don't want to admit the extent of health problems in pedigree dogs and are resistant to change in breeding practices

Good for you Jemima. Your rigorous scientific approach I fear is viewed as 'tiresome' because you do keep exposing the holes in the work that is being done. The mentality and the culture that is embedded in the dog breeding world is extremely concerning to people who are outside of all this, Because they don't appear to understand that THIS is how science works. Keep on being tiresome Jemima!

Reading the above is the first I have heard of the Karlton Index. Whilst ever people/breeders/clubs can be threatened by litigation there will never ever be honesty when collecting data to identify the real, true statistics of what is being experienced healthwise, how often, by which bloodline and the severity. Consequently there can never be an "improvement in health" because the data can never be accurate, effectively it is non exisistent. The only way that an accurate health data base by breed will be established is when there are so many successful law suits by people who buy puppies from breeders who have bred sick animals. Recently in Holland a breeder was successfully sued because he denied an illness which was later proved to untruthful because another case developed. There are young lawyers in this Country who will become aware of it and they will go on the hunt on a "no win, no fee" basis just to get the exposure. It will be easy pickings for them, but this time it will be the breeders who suffer and not the puppies they have recklessly bred for money. Believe me, when that starts to happen then a health data base will be able to develop. Because then breeders will willingly volunteer health issues openly rather than be sued. It will turn completely because they will want to be seen to be proactive, helpful, honest, they will stampede to be heard. Preferably they stop breeding and disappear because they have crawlled back under the slimey stone from which they eminated in the first place but that would only be in a perfect World, and that doesn't exist, does it... But until this happens, there will be hundreds of puppies born to suffer unless WE follow Jemima in her brave effort to expose the people known to be malpracticising, If we don't, we become complicit in this trade and as they say in Scotland "Hell mend the lot of us".

Any breeder who does not take reasonable precautions to prevent producing inherited conditions is at risk of being sued by the owner. But such damages should be limited. Most breeders do not breed for profit , they breed as a hobby and these hobby breeders are the ones that we should be encouraging. No win no fee will never work in dog breeding. The Ambulance chasing lawyers chose big companies with lots of money. Most breeders are poor and it os simply not worth the effort of attempting to prove liability if someone has not money. The onmes most at risk from this type of action are thye charities who breed and sell lots of dogs and do make money from the dogs that the pass on

Sorry 06:04. I read a website recently where it stated that over a five year period 65 puppies had been bred. Estimating a very generous under pricing of £500/puppy (more likely to be £750) that is a turnover of £32,500. Not breeding for profit, you jest of course. Little rascal! That is not breeding a puppy to show on even, that is breeding for money, purely and simply, and that practice is disgraceful. Never mind contributing to the massive genetic reduction within this particular breed. Profit from puppies, puppies for profit, that is the truth. Poor breeders, no, if they can afford to keep dogs, show them, breed from them they are not poor. They are cash rich, because often they want to be paid cash for puppies and that money is not declared, thereby tax evasion big time. It will be worth sueing them if they are malpractising, young lawyers will do it on a no win no fee basis. The suer will probably inform the Inland Revenue first and they will then contact The KC, the trace will be easy. To register the puppies they have to indicate the number of puppies in the litter even if all of those puppies aren't registered and there could be an estimate made of income/litter. It is going to happen, some revengeful person is going to lock horns and well...........

Hi Jemima, I have just read the KI. The headings do not show anything worthwhile. Unless I have missed something the information is rubbish. For the data to be relevant it would have to explain how many clubs were contacted per breed, number of contributors (same per breed) and afflictions explored. Who gathered the data? Unless there is a framework the data is utter rubbish. For it to be effective, there could only be one club per breed (otherwise multiple clubs could mean duplication of info (some people could be members of different clubs) a set number of dogs, and the same afflicitions per breed, like HD, epilepsy, bloat, cancer, entropian, etc etcBut as I say I must have missed the obvious hopefully somebody will tell me what it is and put me right.....

I had a dog with idiopathic epilepsy. The dam had no familial history of it, nor did the sire. My vet's guide dog puppy had idiopathic epilepsy - likewise no history of it in the ancestral line. My (human) friend had idiopathic epilepsy; there was no family history of it.

And sometimes shit shouldn't have happened. In this case, there was a strong familial link - Alfie's sister also died from epilepsy and at a very young age. And then despite that, a litter sister was then bred, to a close relative. Philippa was right, in my opinion, to raise concern. My point was simply that there wasn't quite a good enough case, legally, for us to be able to include it in PDE.

Are you familiar with the Dutch case of an Irish Setter called Sam, it might be worth pointing Phillippa in that direction. Sam's owner won the case. Breeders are leaving themselves wide open if they continue to be reckless with the welfare of their chosen breed.

Just to go back to anon 22:34. We all know that sickness is part of a living creature, it happens, we live and then we die. Some die sooner than they should, some die when the illness they suffer from could be avoided. When illness crops up unexpectedly a good breeder will deal with it, they will be shocked and they will do everything to avoid a reoccurence. It is sad, they feel the saddness and they want to help the owner of the puppy as much as they can, that is a good breeder. It is the bad breeders who deliberately abuse a breed in their care by breeding from high potential animals without a care for the offspring or the future of the breed. The incidences that you refer to are sad, they are not shit as you put it, they are dogs who suffered unexpectedly, it was a human who suffered unexpectedly. It does not negate the responsibility that breeders should have towards their stock. That is what is wrong and what is to be prevented at all cost.

I know someone who sold a puppy then blamed the owner for its seizures. Failing to mention its grandmother and uncle had died during seizures and its father had seizures. & a cousin has now died of seizures.& those are only the ones I know about.

Just because they are named 'idiopathic' does not necessarily mean there is no genetic predisposition to the disease. Idiopathic diseases have evidence of somatic mutations and strong family histories too. It certainly does NOT mean you write it off as an unknown cause.

"It is the bad breeders who deliberately abuse a breed in their care by breeding from high potential animals without a care for the offspring or the future of the breed""Breeders are leaving themselves wide open if they continue to be reckless with the welfare of their chosen breed"I dont think i am alone when i say MORE people should being suing when they have sickly puppies who are from lines that are known to carry high potential genetic risks.Maybe then these poor pups and the breeds wouldnt have to suffer in the hands of such trophy hunting greedridden despicable people. Keep up your work Jemima Your an itch the KC cant scratch girl!

As a breeder I am fairly certain that no one breeds sick puppies on purpose. To my mind, and perhaps I am too optimistic, it is all a question of knowledge and education. When I first started off with my breed about 25 years ago, I was told by experienced breeders to mate granddaughter to grandfather. Luckily I stumbled onto a genetics website and started learning. I find all this ballyhoo about suing breeders totally unproductive.

Interesting you refer to such a serious issue as 'ballyhoo'. Your 'experienced breeders' who you refer to were clearly uneducated though and you did what you were told by people who didn't know what they were doing. These people have no qualifications and are unregulated yet responsible for the life of our family pets. The fact you are 'quite certain no one breeds sick puppies on purpose' is just laughable. Why are the breeders of CKCS, Pugs, Bulldogs continuing with these lines? When questioned by people with more knowledge and education these people become extremely defensive. It stinks! Quite honestly, it's disgusting behaviour. So don't tell me it's unproductive. They have a lot to answer for.

Hi Dorothea, it doesn't matter what we think, but what is going to happen is that in this age of litigation, bad breeders will be sued, they will be found wanting, and hopefully they will stop "trading". A good breeder, who breeds a sick puppy will be supportive and will do the honourable thing, they won't be sued because they will be seen to honest and open. Simple. A breeder who is successfully sued will be vulnerable because the people who have known for years that there is a problem will pitch in, so from all angles they will suffer. Not that the "knowers" should feel smug because they have been complicit in allowing more sick puppies to be bred when they could have stopped it, if they hadn't been cowardly. Money rots the soul and the bad breeders who originally bought a little bundle of fur have forgotten what a joy and privelege it is to have a dog in one's life, it was the day when they realised that that little bundle could make them money, that is when the rot set in. Again it doesn't matter what we think.

If the cause of something is unknown it's irrational to expect guarantees that it won't happen! And certainly unfair to lay blame when lightning strikes out of the blue in the way this condition so often does. By all means blame when evidence has been wilfully ignored, but when none has existed threats of litigation are just vindictive and spiteful.

What is vindictive or spiteful about people not trusting breeders to do the right thing when clearly, there is evidence to suggest that current practices are woefully inadequate?

Idiopathic diseases in nature are only named so because the cause is yet to be established. The more scientists and geneticists learn about the genome, the more they are discovering that there are often genetic predispositions to diseases such as epilepsy. And in pedigree dogs, is lightning really striking out of the blue here? Given the fact that autosomal recessive genes have nowhere to 'hide'in so many breeds anymore.

If you choose to breed CKCS because you have a bitch or dog that hasn't any symptoms of Syringomyelia or MVD - but you have no clinical evidence (scans etc.) that the animal is disease free - Is it vindictive or spiteful for a client to feel let down when their pups falls ill with one of these diseases, knowing that there were tests available at the time?

Or, you visit a Flatcoat Retriever's website as part of your research for your new puppy and you notice that they do not list cancer as a high risk genetic disease in the information about the breed. Are they being responsible? It's not as if the information isn't out there.

Anonymous 12.07; there is NO test for epilepsy, so how is it logical to blame the breeder if a dog develops something which could not be predicted? Epilepsy can strike any breed or crossbreed or mongrel - it's not choosy! And yes, it can happen out of the blue, where a breeder knows for certain (having kept in contact with all the puppy buyers) that there have been no cases in the extended family for 10 generations; so who's to blame? Mother Nature? God?

The vast majority of breeders want 'their' puppies (and they think of them as being theirs all their lives) to live long, healthy lives, just as they want their own children to live long, healthy , lives. In fact dog breeders probably put far more care into the health issues of their dogs than people do about their own choice of mate! There are tests for many human hereditary diseases, and yet how many people are DNA tested for them before they marry and have children? Should children sue their parents if they happen to develop a health issue that could have been tested for before their conception? How about suing for a condition which COULDN'T have been tested for and strikes out of the blue?

One does happen to understand that there is no test for epilepsy. However, from a genetic research perspective, this does not ensure that it will remain idiopathic in the future. Therefore, you don't simply write it off as a curse from 'God', Mother Nature or whatever other cause you may wish to indulge, when there is a clear family history. As for suing for a condition that couldn't have been tested for and was truly idiopathic….. What Lawyer would take on that case I wonder? Dear Lawyer, My mongrel dog has cancer and I need to sue the RSPCA because I don’t know its parentage. Crikey....that'll win. I think people are referring to KNOWN diseases as mentioned in the post by ANON 12:07.Your comparison with human beings suing their parents is strange. We don't knowingly breed children via eugenics, unlike pedigree dogs. There is a rather thorough ante natal/neonatal screening system in this country though of which the policy and practice is rigorously regulated through national standards. We screen and test for the more common inheritable diseases (sickle cell, thalassaemia, PKU, CF etc.) in pregnant women and test partners and neonates where appropriate. A rather ineffective analogy I am sure you would agree, given the fact that the pedigree dog world does not compare to the manner in which human beings reproduce and the fact that the screening programmes and practices are regulated, unlike pedigree dog breeding.

Mary, are you a breeder? You sound very hostile towards this subject. If you are a good breeder you have nothing to worry about, you love your puppies, you've sold them to people you hope will treasure them, you are there if something goes wrong. You are what every breeder should aspire to. Litigation is a fact of life and just anon 12:07 has explained there is a responsibility that breeders have to carry forward if one of their puppies becomes ill. It has been said before we are all living creatures, we become sick, we die. The same happens in other creatures. If someone has bred 10 gens and nothing has occurred and then suddenly something pops up and they are a good breeder they will deal with it fairly. It is the bad, greedy breeders who will deny any responsibilities. They are the ones who will be sued, they leave themselves wide open. It is not being vindictive or spiteful, if they are sued, however it is vindictive and spiteful if they continue to use animals they know have health issues, sell them on, pocket the money and then deny the cruelty. That is s & v. Of course the majority of breeders want their puppies etc etc, of course they do. If a genuine "accident" happens it will be dealt with fairly, if it is a deliberate act to deceive, then the breeder deserves everything that brings him/her to their knees instead of the people who bought their stock and have to hold him whilst he takes his last breath because he has to be destroyed because of the greed of the bad breeder. You said in the stripey pug joke that people should read what is written, try reading these blogs and hear the words. We are all together in helping dogs, not people...

There seems to be a certain confusion about the meaning of "idiopathic epilepsy". Basically, epilepsy is idiopathic by definition: If you have a dog with seizures and you find an underlying cause for them (e.g. stroke, brain tumour, metabolic diseases and others), then the seizures are by definiton NOT epilepsy. A diagnosis of epilepsy can only be made when a dog has seizures and tests show no underlying organic cause.

Of course, that doesn't mean that epilepsy cannot be genetic or that its mode of inheritance cannot be studied, related genes not be identified and selective breeding not be undertaken: All of this is doable and has been done in several breeds. The fact that epilepsy is by definition idiopathic should therefore not be used to construct an excuse for breeders to ignore its genetic components.

@Dorothea: I agree that there are few, if any breeders who intentionally decide to breed sick dogs. But unfortunately, there are many who will implicitly accept the increased risk of producing sick dogs in exchange for the chance of also getting a show winner. They may be pretty good at suppressing the conscious thought, but their actions speak quite clearly in this regard.

What has always intrigued me in this regard is that such breeders will often be quite concerned about the objectively negligible risks of vaccionation or feeding a certain diet, yet accept the very real and relevant risk of producing sick puppies through their show-centric breeding choices. I suspect it may have something to do with the Illusion of Control.

are you a lawyer? you certainly sound like one.. in the USA we call this sort of junk "ambulance chasing" and only the very lowest of the low lawyers stoop to this level. On the flip side.. should breeders be able to sue the owners of their puppies when they become ill from something the owners does? how about if the owner puts the dog in harms way.. does not leash it.. is hit by a car..eats something poisonous at the owners home.denies the animal vet care that the breeder thinks is necessary. etc.. sauce for the goose eh? you are really just a troll.. one who wants NO MORE breeding right? because if people begin to be sued for breeding dogs than no more will be bred and your fantasy will be fulfilled... I suggest you go back to PETA where your ideas will be appreciated.

your idea of suing people to create better dogs is exactly the kind of thing animal RIGHTS people want.( and I am fully aware of the difference..). to make dog breeding less and less attractive to people so less and less people actually breed dogs.. fewer dogs for people to purchase.. I suspect you are the one who is under the "Illusion of Control".You are not looking for "responsible breeding" you are looking for NO breeding. If a person can lose everything they own because of a sick dog then you actually are for NO breeding. No animal is 100 percent healthy all of the time. You mention 10 generations of "nothing occurring" would make you a "good breeder" what the heck does that mean .. why 10.. why not 20.. why not 100 ?Mary is right and I am glad she did not take the bait you threw out for her.

Anon 04:51Different ANON here - not sure who you are referring to as a PETA activist in the above, seems a bit extreme given people's valid concerns about welfare.

It's 'fewer' people actually...not less. Sorry to be a pedant... Anyway, back on topic - what animal rights people want is not want the majority of dog lovers want. Dog lovers on the whole care enormously about their pet's welfare and are keen to see some consistency in the dog breeding world that reflects breeding for the right reasons - health and temperament. I imagine having trusted a breeder to do the right thing and ended up with a sick dog with a genetic disease that could have been preventable would be very, very upsetting indeed. However, if a breeder was aware of idiopathic epilepsy, even in one generation, you'd hope that given the nature of pedigree dog breeding that they would not simply write it off. I don't think that people would be able to, or indeed want to, sue anyone on the basis of this though do you? Particularly if a breeder was doing EVERYTHING they could to ensure that the puppies were healthy?

I think people do actually understand that no animal is 100% healthy all the time actually. After all, they are subject to the genetic lottery of sexual reproduction, but the closed gene pools doesn't leave them much chance of hybrid vigour does it?

Anon 21:51, nobody wants anyone to be sued in an ideal world. Bad breeders who malpractice deserve to be sued. Bad breeding is wicked for the puppies, their lives are finished before they get a fair crakc, and it is wicked for the people who buy the puppy with all of the excitement of a new member of the family. You seem to think that dog breeding will stop if bad breeders are sued. No it won't, it will just mean that kind responsible breeders will continue on into the future, the puppies will be healthier and their new owners will be happier. The remarks about breeders suing the pet owner because they caused a problem with one of their puppies is nonsense, and you know it. Yes if the puppy is being cruelly treated then the breeder has a responsiblity to either get the puppy/adult back privately but if that fails the authorities have to be told and action taken accordingly. Ambulance chasing as an analogy is ridiculous. An ambulance is going to die or suffer it is an inanimate object. A puppy will, it is a living creature. You know that, don't be so juvenile.

I am the owner of a purebred Golden Retriever who came to me as my service dog. He's 4 now and so far very healthy. I love this blog. And I wonder if you have read Ted Kerasote's book "Pukka's Promise: the Quest for Longer Lived Dogs" and what you think of it? I'd really love to know as reading that book, as well as "Merle's Door" has made me think about common practices concerning dogs that may be harming them.

The Irish Wolfhound ranking this high up is another example of a Club that knows how to woo the audience, yet its core members are in fact ignoring some of the most important issues in the breed.

Case in point 1: Longevity. For example, the American Club has a comprehensive longevity program that rewards and certifies long-lived dogs and families and publishes the results, which is useful for buyers and provides an incentive for breeders to select for longevity. There is no trace of any of that in the British Club, even though a short life span is a well-known problem in the breed.

Case in point 2: Liver shunt. It's inherited in the breed in a recessive way, there is no genetic test, and survival rate with surgery is about fifty per cent (it's zero without surgery). However, it can be tested for before puppies are sold, so breeders who do this won't be sued by disappointed puppy buyers. The Club "strongly encourages breeders to test before sale", yet has no policy against re-using dogs who have produced shunt, sometimes quite frequently. It's a nice example of a test that should benefit the dogs being abused to cover the breeders' back side instead.

Case in point 3: Popular sire syndrome. The world winner 1994/95 and his brother from a repeat litter are behind a huge percentage of pedigrees of all dogs (way over 90%), yet the Club does nothing to preserve genetic diversity that is threatened by this. They don't even mention the problem on their site!

Make no mistake: some of the things this Club does are a whole lot better than they are in many comparable breed clubs (including having a health group, donating to health research and having an educational web site), but these two points would warrant a substantial downgrade in ranking.

Hi Wolfhound!! Brilliant blog. All breeds should adopt case in point 1, provided that wellbeing and quality of life remain uppermost in the race for longevity. case in point 2, excellent to check the puppies for liver shunt to ensure they have a good quality of life but absolutely pointless if the animals who produce shunt in the first place continue to breed. You are right I'm afraid in your expression. The danger for the clubs and breeders who ignore that obvious fact will be brought to heel when litigation becomes the norm. Because not only will the breeder be accountable but a club who is seen to be complicit will take a hammering too unless they follow what you suggest. Case in point 3, well what can you say. It is the owners of the sires who have to reign themselves in for the benefit of a breed, from a monetry and a concern for their breed. Irish Setters have suffered from over exposure of popular dog/s and the reduction in genes is inevitably alarming. The clubs should enforce a maximum number of litters of whatever would be acceptable for a breed to sustain. Print off what you have written and send it to them, they may not have thought it through and your drawing their attention to the shortcomings could well prove to be beneficial to the club in fact all breed clubs. Brilliant blog

Your thoughts on her practices are okay to me, but taking personal exchanges, which aren't, by common etiquette, supposed to go out to the public, on a blog seems very inflammatory. It is one thing to insult a person(you), but another to fan the flames across the internet. This is equal to teenagers who have word fights in school, then vilify each other on Facebook or whatever other outlet, and I don't support it in the least.

If you don't agree with her actions, fine, say what you think, but keep out the personal drama between you two. If you want to be taken seriously, stay above immaturity that you so commonly point out of your targets.

I liked visiting and reading one interest group once, and considered joining them, because of their unique situation that was so often ignored, and I agreed with a lot of what they said. But after being there for a while, I saw their hatred fester, justified or not, and it leaked out passively in their editorials and "objective" studies to prove their case. Now I see the same thing here. You definitely can be objective, but you are not here. You're introducing drama and enemies that are absolutely needless in this campaign, even as viral marketing to spread your opinions and cases. Saying you hope you aren't too mean doesn't help. Just don't even mention your exchanges.

Saying she is an old casual acquaintance who you thought about filming her case, is good enough. No back and forth insults like "See! Look at what she said to me in a private e-mail. Look how corrupt she is inside!" type of crap. This is pushing me to not visit anymore. And no, I'm not saying that as a lame threat. I'm hardly worth changing direction over, just saying what I feel about this blog after visiting for about a year now. Its no NBPP, but its not the drama-free objective(yet direct) blog I perceived it as at first....

Skylark, I am a journalist. This was not a personal exchange and there was no breach of etiquette. Philippa knew I was reviewing the Karlton Index for the blog, that I was asking her questions yesterday in relation to it and that her replies could be included in whatever I wrote. Her response above was in answer to a totally non-personal question from me. (I was double-checking something she'd written earlier). I have included it because I think it reveals something about her judgement, which I think is relevant (the KI is all about her judgment, after all). What you're asking me to do is censor it because it doesn't make her look great - at least to some people. I am sure there will be others cheering her on from the sidelines.

Jemima, I'm a big, big fan, but I agree with SkyArk that you should keep it professional, don't promote personal drama.

You do sometimes take cheap shots at people, and bring the discussion down towards the mud. It is not exactly a mark of quality journalism, and I hope you will consentrate on providing independent journalim.

This blogg is a goldmine of information and a fine example of campain journalism. But it is also blogg journalism, with a personal tone, and opinions mixed in with the reporting. Its still a new sort of journalism. New and rifreshing and very important! But Im sure it most be difficult some times to navigate between being a blogger, a commentor, a journalist, a activist and a private individual all in one.

Jemima, I would just like to say a bit thanks for everything you are doing. It must be quite disheartening and sometimes daunting to hear such negative comments about you, both personal and about your work, especially in the face of such opposition.

It is so vital though that there is someone who can look at a dog for what it is and not through a breeder's distorted eye and see where we are going wrong. Not enough people are putting the dogs first.

Deary me........I'm afraid I view this "point scoring system" as dangerous as some of the bad breeding practices......very disappointing. What pedigree dogs need is official body who will insist that health and welfare of registered dogs is the focal point, that means that they are all tested and if those test unsatisfactory are prevented from registering offspring. What would also be useful is a national database of all these dogs including their results similar to that which is used in pedigree sheep (basco data) but to include data that is specific to dogs not sheep!!! When the evidence is placed before you for all to see, clubs will be unable to smear the facts and breeders will have no excuse not to make informed breeding choices. I am realistic enough to know that all bad practice will never be completely eliminated but enough time has passed since PDE to close the gap and yet Jemima is still banging on about the same old things, that really is sickening for dogs..........well that's what I think anyway.

In the farming industry these measures are in place for pedigree livestock, scrapie being a major health problem, they are genotyped and the result recorded, MV another disease which testing is mandatory, if you do not conform you do not register, you do not show, you do not sell at the breed society sales. The online database is a very useful tool when selecting your sire, all pedigrees are available, assists in making informed choices.

Sadly I find a secret society and/or one that makes you pay for vital health/pedigree data like the kennel club a bit suspicious.

Finally just what exactly is wrong with a mutt? do you have proven scientific evidence that they are indeed or will be less healthy???

That's a good place to start with regard to getting some evidence about mutts and health - some references in there.

The KC seems a very odd place indeed. The whole point about regulating breeding practices is that of the pedigree dog breeding that does go on, it is not for the benefit of the health and temperamant of the species. Therefore, it requires some external authority to ensure that the selection process for breeding is more ethical. This applies species wide really if we are talking about canine welfare. We have to move away from being breed biased really IMHO. So there is no reason why mutts should not be health checked in the grand scheme of things and in an ideal world (yeah, dream on...)

The myth that is attached to pedigree dogs being of 'good breeding' is just that - it's a myth that has been sold to the general dog owning public. Genetically, they are actually inferior to most mutts with regard to their genetic variation and the resulting robust, physical health. However, that doesn't mean that mutts don't ever get ill or sick! That is another myth that needs busting!

Having mutts myself means I am rarely at the vet - twice in the last two years and both for routine vaccinations.

It all comes back to education - and breeding practices. There are too many sick dogs, dogs in rescue that nobody wants or can be bothered with or who aren't cute or pretty enough etc. So regulating the whole area - breeding, training, ownership, I reckon would help our 'best friends' function a lot more harmoniously - healthwise and temperamentally sounder - enormously in our pretty strange world.

Well actually there is no reason why they cannot be hip scored, heart tested etc............but frankly I have two "registered" pedigree dogs neither of which have tested parents and the vast majority of registered puppies come from untested dogs.

There are serious health problems in many breeds which need addressing urgently, are you not too bothered by that so long as you can keep producing puppies eh??

What´s with the Dachshund club? Looking for a gene that causes disc disease? Look, you know all about it that you need to know already! The Dachshund is a chondrodysplastic dwarf - can we agree? I e, body reasonably normal in size and shape, but legs unreasonably short. They´re short because the dominant gene causing chondrodysplasia disturbs the normal growth and shape of the embryonic cartilage model that will gradually turn into bone. Right?

So what is a disc made up of? Err, cartilage... And why spend money and research capacity on chasing after a gene that will cause trouble in one cartilage template and not in another?

Because what I cherish most of all is the scientific blessing on my desire to breed one defect and not the other one which comes in the package?

As the Karlton Index is so very subjective, it is relevant to discover that the person responsible for the grading seems to have judgement issues. She used to want to be part of a crusade to reform dog health - but now she takes down the story of the dog that supposedly inspired her. Why? In case it makes her new friends uncomfortable? Just seems a little overly flexible to be credible. Jemima is a campaigning journalist and thank god she is tireless in biting the ankles that still need biting. "Tiresome" would be the word I would use to describe those who seek to belong, who are flattered to join any establishment that will welcome them.Karlton Index could have been a credible independent measure of dogs' health and welfare from a consumer's perspective. In its current incarnation it's just as impotent as the overly positive 'independent' vet checks at Crufts. It's a strange choice to become part of the problem - not part of the solution. To become part of the fiction that things are suddenly that much better and there's nothing to worry about - that the KC can start to relax and get back to the 'good old' pre PDE days.Shall we start taking bets as to when the KC offer Judas her pieces of silver? Or is the KC member's badge mainly gold in colour?

I think that's too strong, Anon. I have no doubt that Philippa cares passionately about dog health and, in the real world, I accept there does need to be a bridge between opposing extremes. Philippa has taken that mantle upon herself; I have questioned whether it's the right way to go, but I would not question the motivation behind it.

There is a big difference between a bridge and someone who seems intent on burning them! Jemima you are just so very fair, seeing an equally good heart in everyone - hope your trust is not further abused by this vacuous person who is attempting to make bullshit a science.Still say that KC badge will be along very shortly... members and pricks, interchangeable words in my dictionary.

So she's become a collaborator? And has now come to believe the party line, that you're an irresponsible gadfly, out to destroy a proud institution for no logical reason? Sounds very Vichy France, if you ask me. Don't take any train rides with her, and keep up the good work - they wouldn't hate you so much if you weren't exposing the real problems.

All i can see with the Karlton index is that it is a tool used to look at management within organisations rather than looking at the health of the dog and its breed. I can understand that Phillipa decided the best way to tackle the poor practices would be working with rather than against breeders and the kennel club. But there is no way that this is going to work, you have to an independent organisation otherwize you get sucked into the beleifs of the groups , which makes it no longer independent. Because the Karlton index has also been changed and reformated there can be know comparisons to the previous scores anyway. It is all statistical, and statistics can lie, depending on what way you want the results to swing.

The criteria have not changed, ASFAIK. The problem is that the scoring is in most instances arbitrary and subjective. One could argue that the it's the same arbitrariness/subjectivity as it's the same person doing the scoring - but, of course, since the first 2011 scores, Philippa has made an effort to get to know breeders - a good thing in many ways, other than that it can only influence her.

What the KI measures at the moment is the delivery of health information. That in itself is just fine. But that's what it needs to say it's doing - not "measuring progress in the health of our dogs".

From the Chairman of the Dachschund Breed Council: "Back Disease (IVDD) is the big health issue in Dachshunds and our Dachs-Life 2012 survey showed that, in some varieties, 1 in 3 dogs may suffer from IVDD to some extent in their life."

How the hell can a breed where ONE-THIRD of the dogs will suffer from Intervertebral Disk Disease - a debilitating and costly back problem - be top of the list, whereas a breed such as the Whippet, which has sound conformation and is still relatively free of disease, not even get a mention!!

If you wreck a breed, then you have to put such a tremendous amount of effort in just to get it remotely functional again, that it can look like you're working hard on health. Whereas if you still have a reasonably healthy breed, with sound 'fit-for-purpose' conformation, then it can look like you're not doing much.

If I was a betting person, I'd choose the Whippet over the Dachshund every single time!

I found a study on IVD degeneration. Full article can be read here: http://www.vetscite.org/publish/articles/000102/index.html

"An interesting incidental finding in our study was that most IVDs of Jack Russell terriers, despite their CD phenotype, had a low Pfirrmann grade irrespective of the dog’s age, in marked contrast with the other CD breeds. This indicates that genetic factors causing chondrodysplasia in dogs might not necessarily be responsible for IVD degeneration. If chondrodysplasia and IVD degeneration are indeed caused by different genetic factors, they are probably closely linked in most dog breeds. Another finding highlighting the complexity of this association is based on a recent publication, that showed that an expressed fgf4 retrogene is a likely cause of chondrodysplasia. This retrogene is not expressed in the Beagle, one of the CD breeds at highest risk of developing IVD degenerative disease, which indicates that different genetic factors could be involved in chondrodysplasia and associated IVD degeneration." (Notes:CD = chondrodystrophic dog, Pfirrmann grade = classification system for lumbar disc degeneration based on MRI)

If the short legged confirmation and IVDD are not inherited as one then breeding away from IVDD should be possible while retaining the short legs (though the Dachshund could use bit more leg and less lenght of back anyway). Though I imagine it would difficult if they are closely linked.

Getting the breed clubs to pull up their socks sounds like a great idea. But I'm not optimistic. Breed clubs delegate to the health committee. The health committee may have some members with good understanding of the scientific questions impinging on breed health and may write some fine recommendations. However, the club isn't likely to accept anything with teeth, or anything that restricts breeders' rights to decide what dog to put to which bitch. So the KI comes down to a ruling on who does the best charade.

I looked on the Kimmax site. It does talk about health being important and I notice that they are not only accredited breeders but "Breeder of Excellence" (and I think it said the only one?? but don't quote me on that) - How can that be if Phillipa's horrible story is taken into account? What do breeders need to do to achieve that "status" -- not a lot by the sounds of it.... It really does make the KC look totally ridiculous.

The index gives the impression that these breeds are healthy, yet all but three are breeds I would not even consider due to their extensive health or conformation problems.

Surely she would be better off measuring age and cause of death and keeping track of the percentage of dogs affected by certain illnesses?

The Otterhound has such a small gene pool, that it's in danger of becoming extinct. Not helped by the fact that most people don't want a pet dog that is bred to spend the entire day swimming in the river!

Is there a way to do a sort of "Reverse Karlton Index" giving dog-lovers and enthusiasts a list of the healthiest breeds? This sort of thing drives demand from the end-user - people buying puppies. It could have the result of making breeders more cognizant of how low their breed scores, making it undesireable and less marketable.....

Yes, but you have to be careful. Even amongst the 'healthier' breeds, there are those which don't health test their stock (no KC requirement, but certain tests are still necessary) and breed dogs with high COIs.

Creating a rush on these 'healthier' breeds could mean more backyard breeders and puppy farmers get in on the act, to meet the increase in demand. Not that a lot of show breeders are significantly better, seeing as they too don't health test, don't keep track of health problems in the different lines and breed dogs with COIs way higher than 5% (frequently as high as full or half-sibling matings).

One way show breeders have an advantage over pet breeders, is that they frequently mingle with other breeders, so learn to distinguish the good from the bad.

Notwithstanding Fran's caveats, a healthiest breeds index would be a great idea. And, actually, no work involved - other than persuading the pet insurance companies to release their data. That is, however, a big problem - at least in the UK.

Of course, insurance companies only record what they're told; they don't check. If a dog is down as a Lapland Lichenhound rather than a Finnish Spitz thewn immediately their data are skewed.

Also their longevity records are unreliable; all pet insurance premiums rise as a dog ages (the older one becomes the higher the risk of illness or injury) and there is a massive hike in premiums at about the age of 8. This is when the majority of owners cancel their insurance and rely on savings instead as it's more financially sensible. As a result all those dogs which were previously insured fall out of the insurance companies' records - and how many owners, who stopped insuring their pet is going to tell the company when it died 7 years later? And how many companies would be interested? NONE. Insurance companies only know when the small minority of animals which are actually insured die at an unexpectedly early age; they neither know nor care about the majority which live long, healthy lives.

Mixed thoughts on this one. The KI adds a sense of competition to improving health and some of the fancy cannot resist a competition...so a positive move overall.

OTOH, the KI data are subjective and may lack rigour -it would be great to see some 'prizes' available for low COI litters and transparency of reported health problems on breed web pages.

Jemima, you have explained the commentary on your personal exchange with PR, but I flinched big-time. It reminded me of the petty inter-breeder exchange which some of us struggle (against the prevailing tide) to move away from while keeping the spotlight on health.

You know when you are on the right track...when defenses rise.If they are so proud of their distinctive breeding...they should welcome inquiry and be confident in results. Philiwhateverhername is exactly the type I despise and meet at cat shows. The animal cult *cough* shows are to capacity with these snotty mean types. I stopped going because any form of questioning....nasty response. Then why do you breed if you don't want people to question? Some of us have an issue with having to humanely euthanize a dog at 4 years after spending thousands...and/or humanely euthanize Humane Society dogs because the HS is FULL of "purebreds"....frankly, I am tired of the "I don't make any money off of my breeding. I do it for the love." CROCK! It is tax free money and the majority don't bother to take their stock back when they wind up in the HS. Start taxing the breeders AND making them microchip their animals--make them take the animal back if it winds up in shelter.

SUBSCRIBE TO PDE - THE BLOG

Search This Blog

About Me

I grew up with pedigree dogs - English Setters, Great Danes, Labradors and, most recently, Flatcoated Retrievers. Today, I share my home with an assortment of dogs, purebred and mutts. In 2008, I directed Pedigree Dogs Exposed, a BBC documentary which uncovered the extent of health and welfare problems in pedigree dogs. The film has now been shown in more than 20 countries. Campaigning for improved purebred dog health is now a great passion - one fuelled by the fear that those who currently view themselves as the guardians of pedigree dogs are, often unwittingly, the agents of their demise.
My mission, then, is to continue to highlight where things have gone wrong and to encourage breeders and Kennel Clubs to embrace reform - particularly when it comes to harmful phenotypes and inbreeding.